What are 'perfect' proportions, muscle-wise?

Just wondering what people consider to be a well-proportioned physique, i.e. what measurements, or ratios, are the 'ideal'?

I have always strived for a well-proportioned physique as you see a lot of guys in the gym who have oversized arms for their frame, or huge shoulders that look grotesquely out of proportion, or just an ill-balanced physique that looks like they will have mobility problems when they are older!

I'm sure you know the kinds of guys I mean. If they focused more on their overall body they would probably have a really attractive, balanced physique but they focus on one or two areas and end up looking somewhat freakish.

I measured my legs and chest this morning, totally cold, and thighs were 25" and chest only 38" - I'm starting to feel my legs are growing out of proportion to my upper body. What do YOU think is the ideal, or perfect measurement for each area?

Your waist measured with a tape measure is not the same as the size of the pants that you wear. Pants are made with inaccurately lower numbers so that we delude ourselves into thinking we have tinier waists than we actually have. My 35" waist measured with a tape measure actually can fit loosely in a 32" pair of jeans or shorts.

The measurement done with a tape measure is the actual measurement.

I worked in a clothing store and I would measure the waist with a tape measure,... and then I would hand the dude those pants and they fit.

I would agree that JEANS may be made that way, but quality pants are not made that way.

Chest - 38Forearm - 11Waist- 31Thigh- 21.5Hips- 37Calf - 16 (LOL... I was born with great calves... there's my ONE area where I meet the standard...Jeezus)Biceps- 13 (WTF?? I would need to weigh like 220 lbs to look like this!)Neck- 16

I'm over it! Fuck the Greeks and their measurements! I'll never look like that! lol

This calculation confirms what I always suspected:I`m generally smaller and slightly slimmer than my ideal form,especially my chest!I think I need to do more training in the upper body!Back to the gym.....

MuchMoreThanMuscle saidWell, I don't know what to tell you. I can shop at Marshall's or Bloomingdale's or Macy's and I wear a 32" waist sized pants or shorts. But with a tape measure I am literally 35".

So from my experience I do not see it having to do with quality of pants. Bloomingdale's may not have the highest end and most expensive clothing but then I really don't care to spend more than that at Barney's New York or similar places.

There is some correlation between quality of clothes and their fit... Cheaper usually have a less 'fitted' look...... generally speaking.

But once you get to a certain level, its not a huge difference and price becomes irrelevant. What becomes more relevant is the difference in fit BETWEEN brands.

And once you get into different brands at Bloomies, Barneys, etc.... You see that every designer has their norm thats suited to the look of their clothes.

True Religion jeans are known to be way off..... i fit into a size 28-29.... but really i'm a 30, 31 or 32 depending on the cut of the pants!

I have added 2" to my chest over the past year and hope to do that again over the next year. I also have a big butt, so my hip number is a bit high. I was surprised by the calf number, though. I always thought they were kinda small...